Parasitic bloggers – yes, John Armstrong is right. Exactly

It was good to see some ‘pushback’ from the NZ Herald‘s veteran political columnist John Armstrong against second-guessing armchair critics (who happen to be bloggers).

In an article originally titled:Blogging parasites don’t let the facts get in the way with the subtitle: Cheap shots at press corps based largely on ignorance and show no regard for journalistic accuracy or taste he poked the borax back at a couple of (in this case) left wing bloggers standing in for the blogosphere.

Good on John Armstrong calling it as he sees it. I thought, and tweeted my support this morning:

. @rodemmerson Parasites? Unquestionably yes. Good on John Armstrong. I also agree re armchair critics of gallery. Walk a mile, people.

So, it was a surprise this afternoon to see John’s headline and sub-head had been edited …

What? Now the MSM can't criticise bloggers? For real? (click to enlarge)

I strongly agree with John’s criticism. And I think his description of bloggers as ‘parasitic‘ is completely fair. I’ve said similar things about the ‘cheap shots’ aimed at mainstream media …

There’s a sad, kid-with-his-nose-pressed-up-against-the-glass yearning in much of the whiny ‘commentary’ about how social media has ‘attacked’ mainstream media, and how MSM ‘hates’ or doesn’t ‘get’ social media. Bloggers from Cameron Slater to Martyn Bradbury agree on the sad state of MSM compared to … er, … their blogs.
A lot of it is, as I see it, just a Generation gap style adolescent longing to be regarded as significant and different. People who see themselves as a ‘new generation’ of media pine and hanker to be acknowledged for their talent, (in some cases) hard work and dedication to their social media spinning jenny, and express frustration at a lack of doors swiftly opening for them.

Cameron Slater, the right wing ‘blogger whose poos don’t smell‘ is at it again. Cameron parasitically relies on the mainstream media for source material to feed his abusive narrative against anything remotely ‘pinko’. He has the ill-grace to frequently berate the very same mainstream media he so plunders and leans on as corrupt, lazy and dishonest ‘chumps’. What? Compared to him?

Further, some bloggers who themselves rely intensely on mainstream media (or parasitically, as discussed) appear to hold a giddily inflated view of the role of social media in ‘leading’ news these days. They point to examples where MSM journalists pick up on ‘stories’ or developments some of which emerge via social media … as if that is somehow akin to heralding the extinction of the dinosaurs.

‘Old media’ will absorb ‘new media’ as I have argued. Read John’s article for yourself. As I see what he was doing (and he doesn’t need me to speak for him!) John was primarily calling out ill-informed, inaccurate reporting/blogging — ignorant, he called it — and secondarily writers needlessly taking a ‘cheap shots’ at MSM reporters (and press gallery journos in particular) as if they were incompetent.

An unpleasant, reactive ‘us and them’ partisanship permeates a lot of the so-called commentary about media e.g. Cam’s fact-free assertion that the Press Gallery is bound by some cosy set of rules to prevent them criticising parliamentarians. That might sound good in a blog post but it’s pure fantasy. (I worked there, so I feel I can comment. Does that make me ‘pompous’? Who cares?)
Now, seriously, is bias and ‘provider capture’ present in the media? Do ‘access’ issues concern or constrain some journalists?
Yeah, sure, sometimes. But it’s not a monolithic conspiracy — ‘old’ versus ‘new’ media.

Mankind seems to have an infinite capacity for thinking up new labels to use to divide us.

I support John Armstrong’s comments. I don’t see them as a dummy-spit or an anti-blogger rant or howl of extinction anguish as others do.

His exasperation, I think, is more to do with what I described as second-guessers, and people criticising a reporter on the job from a safe distance, and the easy cheap potshots that are often lobbed at the press gallery.

Like others, I see ‘blogging’ and ‘blogger’ as transitive terms. It’s all just writing. Some are better at it than others, some hold to ‘journalistic’ standards. (I think Gordon Campbell has earned the right, BTW.)

I once worked with the ex wife of Maurice Shadbolt … at the time, the editor of PEN magazine.

At that time i made the decision that Journalism wasnt for me.

Since the advent of online numbnuts behaviour often termed “blogging” i decided that wasnt for me either.

Who is Gordon Campbell??

John Armstrongs columns sometimes seem to me to be reasonable and good – other times i think he is also duped by brand key.

Headlines Peter – are thing that let the press gallery – and the journalistic profession down. Bloggers seem in turn – to be people who forget the body copy and simply take the headline and expand on it – they call it ‘truth’ whats more.

I first met him when some friends and I were promoting concerts by Christian rockers Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill and then we got the chance to bring out Canadian Bruce Cockburn, whom music journos like Gordon had heard of.

Gordon wrote a good review of Bruce’s concert in the old Wellington Town Hall.

Aah – Cockburn – “wondering where the lions are” hated his work – along with Larry Norman and Stonehill … second rate musos in my uninformed opinion. Reeked all of them of tie dyes, long hair, unwashed jeans – and generally an overly malleable generation within their jaded grasp.

Is there such a thing as a “good” Journalist?

Then again – anyone who despises that ratfaced PM we currently have – isnt all bad.